jump to navigation

Super Bowl Mascots Converge January 29, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll, Uncategorized.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

The Chicago Cardinals moved to St. Louis when I was seven. They unceremoniously moved to Phoenix in 1988. After which time, I declared that no Bidwell-owned Cardinals team would ever make it to the Super Bowl. Well, I’m glad to say that I’m wrong…finally.

Here are two mascots who have sat on my various shelves over the years and now they can “come out” in pride. The bobble head is from 1962. The bird is from 1985. This is their moment to bask in the Super Bowl sun!

Bobble Head & Fuzzy Bird Cardinals Come Out

Bobble Head & Fuzzy Bird Cardinals Come Out

Mascots discuss chances for a Super Bowl win

Mascots discuss chances for a Super Bowl win

Pork, Democrat meat of choice, on display January 28, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

Filed by Sam Dillon, New York Times, January 28 (bold face is mine):

“WASHINGTON — The economic stimulus plan that Congress has scheduled for a vote on Wednesday would shower the nation’s school districts, child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending, a vast two-year investment that would more than double the Department of Education’s current budget.

The proposed emergency expenditures on nearly every realm of education, including school renovation, special education, Head Start and grants to needy college students, would amount to the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II.

Critics and supporters alike said that by its sheer scope, the measure could profoundly change the federal government’s role in education, which has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local government.”

And this “stimulates” the economy how? Along the line of Nancy Pelosi’s “family planning” provision? Yes, only the scope of the public educational system “bail out” is nearly too much to bear.

But don’t believe me, there’s more:

Obama administration officials, teachers unions and associations representing school boards, colleges and other institutions in American education said the aid would bring crucial financial relief to the nation’s 15,000 school districts and to thousands of campuses otherwise threatened with severe cutbacks.

“This is going to avert literally hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Tuesday.

Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the House education committee, said, “We cannot let education collapse; we have to provide this level of support to schools.”

But Republicans strongly criticized some of the proposals as wasteful spending and an ill-considered expansion of the federal government’s role, traditionally centered on aid to needy students, into new realms like local school construction.

And they were joined by some education experts from across the political spectrum in wondering how school districts could spend so many new billions so fast, whether such an outpouring of dollars would lead to higher student achievement, and what might happen in two years when the stimulus money ends.”

The end game for Democrats isn’t better test scores for students or improved educational infrastructure, it’s power. Pure and simple: make people more reliant on government and that fixes a long term problem plaguing  Democrats.

Hold on, the best is yet to come:

“Analysts were also turning up surprises in the fine print.

One provision, which was sought by the student lending industry and went unmentioned in early Congressional summaries of the stimulus package, would temporarily increase subsidies to banks in the guaranteed student loan program by tying them to a new index, partly because recent federal intervention in the credit markets has invalidated the previous index. A spokesman for Sallie Mae, one of the largest student lenders, said the change was needed to keep student loan markets fluid. Critics said it represented a potential new windfall for lenders.

“This just continues the well-established tradition of welfare for the student loan industry,” said Barmak Nassirian, an expert in student lending.

The formulas by which the stimulus money for public schools would be allocated to states and local districts are complex, but take into consideration numbers of school-age children in poor families. The level received per student would vary considerably by state, according to an analysis by the New America Foundation, a research group that monitors education spending. New York would be among the biggest beneficiaries, at $760 per student, while New Jersey and Connecticut would fall near the bottom, with $427 and $409 per student, respectively. The District of Columbia would get the most per student, $1,289, according to the foundation’s analysis.”

Well, the old saying is “payback is hell” and so it is for conservatives who have to watch this, powerless to make anything more than a moral statement if not one Republican votes for the package.

Let’s get another view of the whole thing (same article):

“Frederick Hess, an education policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized the bill as failing to include mechanisms to encourage districts to bring school budgets in line with property tax revenues, which have plunged with the bursting of the real estate bubble.

“It’s like an alcoholic at the end of the night when the bars close, and the solution is to open the bar for another hour,” Mr. Hess said.

The bill would, for the first time, involve the federal government in a significant fashion in the building and renovation of schools, which has been the responsibility of states and districts. It includes $20 billion for school renovation and modernization, with $14 billion for elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education. It also includes tax provisions under which the federal government would pay the interest on construction bonds issued by school districts.”

Joy! Rapture! said the scarecrow to Dorothy. We must be back in Oz. Or is it Camelot without the frills?

Let’s wrap the package up neatly (same article):

“But Representative Howard P. McKeon, Republican of California and the ranking minority member of the House education committee, said, “By putting the federal government in the business of building schools, Democrats may be irrevocably changing the federal government’s role in education in this country.”

In higher education, the bill would increase spending on Pell Grants, the most important federal student aid program, to $27 billion from about $19 billion this year.

“It’s a very good idea to increase Pell Grants in the stimulus,” said Terry Hartle, a senior vice president for public affairs at the American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities.

But Mr. Hartle said that even he was having difficulty tracking all the new spending.

“A lot of things will go through, and only later will we know exactly what happened,” he said.”

And we know now (as we are in the midst of it) about how the Clintonian expansion of home loans worked out, don’t we? The Democrat education pork bill will be a similar debacle discussed ten years hence.

Barry HUSSEIN Obama on Arab TV January 28, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

From the AP report earlier today regarding President Obama’s interview on Arab TV (I can’t make this stuff up, folks):

“The interview on the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel aired as Obama’s new envoy to the region, former Sen. George J. Mitchell, arrived in Egypt on Tuesday for a visit that will also take him to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Obama said the U.S. had made mistakes in the past but “that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”

Obama also emphasized the importance of engaging with Iran, a country the Bush administration often singled out as the most dangerous in the region.

Obama condemned Iran’s threats against Israel, pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorist organizations, but said “it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress.”

Obama’s predecessor, former President George W. Bush, launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.

In contrast to the enthusiastic reception Obama’s victory has garnered around the world, the Arab world has been much more cautious about the new U.S. president — with most people skeptical that American policy in the region will change substantially.

After earlier dismissing Obama as following the same policies as his predecessor, officials from the militant Palestinian Hamas group softened their stance against the new president Tuesday.

“In the last couple of days there have been a lot of statements (from Obama), some of them very positive, and choosing this George Mitchell as an envoy,” said Ahmed Youssef, a senior Hamas official interviewed on the Doha-based Al-Jazeera news network. “I think there are some positive things we have to count.”"

How Clintonian. This is your pandering President, offering olive branches where none should be offered and receiving accolades from the very cockroaches that need to be exterminated.

But don’t believe me. Check it out from the same AP report:

“In the interview, Obama called for a new partnership with the Muslim world “based on mutual respect and mutual interest.” He talked about growing up in Indonesia, the Muslim world’s most populous nation, and noted that he has Muslim relatives.

Obama’s Kenyan father was born Muslim, though a self-described atheist, and many of his relatives in Kenya are practicing Muslims. As a child, Obama lived for a number of years in Indonesia while his mother as doing research there.

This appeal does seem to have struck a chord among many Muslims.

“He’s different from the previous presidents, perhaps because of his color or his Islamic background. My views of America are different now than they were during the Bush administration,” said Youssef Ali, 45, who works for the Iraqi Electricity Ministry in Baghdad.”

We are ever so pleased to be able to bring into the flock of America-lovers those who want to see us die like pigs in mud.

And, of course, how could we not have the utmost respect for this President when he demonstrates these characteristics, again from the same AP report:

“Obama said he felt it was important to “get engaged right away” in the Middle East and had directed Mitchell to talk to “all the major parties involved.” His administration would craft an approach after that, he said.

“What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating,” Obama told the interviewer.”

Maybe might doesn’t always mean right, but it’s never a bad thing to be at the head of the table as LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD. Obama seems like he’s apologizing for our strength. This is bad form when speaking to the testosterone driven radical Islamist world. Again, the very people who want to wipe Israel and the USA off the map.

To attempt to be fair to this new President, his Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, gave stirring testimony to the House that signals Obama may have at least a grasp on the road ahead in the War On Terror (from NPR, All Things Considered, earlier today):

“My own personal view is that our primary goal is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the United States and our allies,” he (Gates) said. “And whatever else we need to do flows from that objective. Afghanistan is the fourth- or fifth-poorest country in the world, and if we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose.”

Because nobody has that kind of time, patience and money, Gates added.

Several senators praised Gates for his directness. Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina asked point-blank about the consequences of putting more troops in Afghanistan:

“Is it fair to say that casualties in Afghanistan are likely to go up?” Graham asked Gates.

“I think that’s likely,” Gates replied.

“And the amount of money we spend is likely to go up in the short term, maybe foreseeable future?” asked Graham.

“Yes, sir,” said Gates.

Graham wasn’t done. “Bottom line is, it’s going to be tough, it’s going to be difficult, in many ways harder than Iraq,” Graham said. “Do you agree with that?”

“Yes,” replied Gates.”"

Re-directing our efforts to Afghanistan, now that the surge in Iraq has worked, is the right thing to do. It’s not too late to keep it from becoming a permanent haven for terrorists and I hope the President sincerely recognizes this and does whatever it takes to bring it back to freedom and peace. Like Iraq, an Afghanistan in liberty would be an outstanding accomplishment for what appears to be a dovish President with an appeasement mentality, more interested in talk than action.

Action in Afghanistan might get me to back off the HUSSEIN a little.

Jay McGwire is a rat January 23, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll, Major League Baseball, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

“Deadspin.com reported Wednesday (Jan. 21, 2009) that Jay McGwire has been shopping a book proposal to major publishing houses that claims he introduced the scandal-stained slugger to steroids and that he also used human growth hormone.

In the proposal for “The McGwire Family Secret,” Jay McGwire says he used a $150,000 insurance settlement from a BB gun accident that cost him an eye to purchase steroids. Jay McGwire writes that Mark started juicing after watching his brother build himself into a 6-3, 320-pound professional bodybuilder.”

Okay, that’s enough of that. Rat-fink brothers count for zip in my book so I hope Jay gets no takers in his get rich on the back of his brother scheme.

Now, full disclosure: I am a lifelong St. Louis Cardinals fan. I believe Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa brought baseball “back” in 1998 after the horrendous 1994 season and World Series that wasn’t. I am a McGwire apologist who believes he belongs in the Hall of Fame since it has not been proven that he did anything illegal (against MLB rules) during his career. During his appearance before a Congressional sub-committee he did not present himself very well and there is no argument with that assessment. Nevertheless, it is no different than Bill Bruckner muffing one grounder in the midst of a solid career or Jackie Smith being remembered for the one catch he didn’t make with the Dallas Cowboys instead of the hundereds he did with both the St. Louis Football Cardinals and the Cowboys in an otherwise Hall of Fame career. It was one moment, off the field, and McGwire should not be judged by that.

In my opinion, George Brett (Mr. Pine Tar) and Gaylord Perry (Mr. Spit Ball) are examples of guys who put up great numbers but, in my opinion, were helped by breaking the rules while playing. Both nice guys and chums with writers so they sit in the Hall. McGwire, not so much, especially after retirement, and he receives the Pete Rose treatment. It’s unnecessary and uncalled for.

Refresh my memory, when did the MLB institute its anti-steroid policy? It was 2002 best I recall. That covered how many years of McGwire’s career? Zip. His last game was October 7, 2001. If pine tar was bad for the game… If spitballs were bad for the game…and apparently they were… it didn’t stop players who could use them to further their careers PRIOR to rules outlawing them, did it? They are in the HOF, aren’t they? Then, give me one legitimate reason McGwire shouldn’t be there, too.

Not sucking up to a bunch of jock-sniffing sportswriters is the REAL thing that cost McGwire his place in the Hall. That’s sad.

And you wonder why readers walk away from newspaper and magazine sports columnists and reporters and migrate to airhead blogs like this?

It’s no wonder.

“Pussification” begins on Obama watch January 22, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

This is how Fox News reported the outset of the official “pussification” of America (boldface is mine):

“WASHINGTON — President Obama, putting his executive pen in his left hand to overrule eight years of Bush administration policy, signed “several” executive orders Thursday, including ones affecting national security.

The national security orders mandate that interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual be used by all intelligence and law enforcement services; call for a task force to look at closing the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within the year; and orders a strategy to be developed for handling detainees in the future. The presidential directive also orders a stay in the case of Ali Al-Marri, the only person being held by the military as an enemy combatant on U.S. soil.

“We intend to win this fight. We’re going to win it on our terms,” Obama said as he signed the orders and the directive in the Oval Office. Obama explained each order before he put his pen to them, in some cases reading them in full, and occasionally solicited input from White House counsel Greg Craig to make sure he was describing them correctly.

The executive order says everyone in custody should be questioned under the Army Field Manual, which is intended for honorable combatants, meaning POWs in a military conflict. The rule would prevent trained interrogators at the CIA from using lawful interrogation techniques against terrorists who have been trained to withstand Army Field Manual techniques.

“The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals,” the president said.”

This takes political correctness to the highest level. Possibly making even Bill Clinton blush. First, the obvious question: When did terrorists become “honorable combatants” deserving of grammar school interrogation tactics? I guess I missed it because somewhere between the election and the coronation it appears the definition was altered. Judging from the smiling facing at the signing, I must be the only one unhappy about this.

As far as the “message we are sending the world”: 1) the “world” can piss off! This president is suppose to protect this nation, not posture for the cry-baby countries who don’t want us to be the strongest nation in the world. If Obama wants the USA to be like all other nations…the ultimate socialism…this is a good first step, and 2) If violence is to be inflicted, it is to be on our enemies first and foremost so they will think twice about trying to perpetrate it on our citizens in their homeland EVER AGAIN.

Demonstrate to me how going by the Army Field Manual and sending messages to the world increases the protection of this nation, and I’ll back off. These executive orders, like Obama’s campaign rhetoric, do not accomplish a thing in assisting those who have volunteered to do it, better protect this nation.

You kill these cockroaches where they live so they don’t spread. Unfortunately, this president doesn’t see it that way.

Inauguration Day is for suckers January 21, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll.
Tags: , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

It is simple to ignore what you believe is not relevant. Presidential inaugurations fit this category. After all, what mattered was who was elected and what matters is what will be done. In the parlance of the gambler, Inauguration Day is for suckers.

And I don’t say that lightly. I have witnessed only one inauguration day since I was able to vote (Reagan, 1981) and one as a child (Kennedy, 1961). Thus, my track record speaks for itself. My belief is that it’s not what’s said at the pep rally that matters, it’s what follows that matters most.

I believe President Obama is a socialist at heart. I blogged about this frequently during the campaign and I will believe until he proves me wrong. He has chosen Clinton-era retreads for his Cabinet. One, if he were you or me, would have earned prison for tax evasion. Not in the eyes f this president. It earns him a Cabinet post as head of the IRS.

I do not dislike the president because of his race. If that were true, I could have chosen and could choose a more white region than metro Atlanta to live and work. I didn’t and I won’t. Ethnicity doesn’t frighten me. Socialistic and ultra liberal positions and policies do, regardless of what race or gender espouses them.

I will give this president, as I have each before him, the opportunity to demonstrate leadership. He will stand or fail on his own merits, nt based on any judgement I pass on him. However, since he has decided to accept this position, he will endure the minute scrutiny his immediate predecessor endured. It will not be pretty. I sincerely believe MSNBC will be out of business in two years without President Bush to beat on every day.

I think you will agree that John Lennon was not the most politically conservative man during his time on this planet. So it is intriguing how one of his lyrics resonated with me often during this campaign:

“If you go carryin’ pictures of Chairman Mao

You aint goin’ make it with anyone anyhow.”

As a candidate, the president’s followers cast him in  Mao/Che art and for someone like me who was predisposed to dislike the man, these were disconcerting images. That he seems to want to call department heads “czars” is not helpful, but instructive of what I believe the theme of his presidency will be.

Prove me wrong.

Pepper…then Salt January 15, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

My guess is this question could only be faux seriously presented by a liberal who doesn’t believe in a “mainstream” or objects to the whole philosophy of “mainstream”. Nevertheless, kick back and read the swill we’ll have forced upon us the next four years:

How Will White America Respond In The Obama Era?

By Pepper Miller, 1.13.09, Ad Age Online

There is much discussion about the impact of the Obama presidency on the Black community. In particular, Obama’s presidential election has illuminated kitchen-table conversations and buzz in the Black community about accountability, responsibility and, of course, pride. Ta-Nehisi Coates writes about this mind-set and these conversations in “Obama and the Myth of the Black Messiah”: “The truth is that the dominant conversation in the black community today is not about racism or victimization, but about self-improvement.” This topic is not as new as the media tends to promote. Yet the Obama presidency will no doubt provide the African-American community a focal point to help keep it on track.

The burning question for me is how White America will respond to Black America during the Obama presidency. I’m sorry, but the “I-don’t-see-race-when-I-see-a-black-person” statement has always bothered me. I realize that the person delivering it may mean well, but I tend to agree with Jonathan Jackson (the son of Jesse Jackson Sr.): “When people say they don’t see race, it’s another way of saying they don’t want to see race. People should be proud to see African-American, Asian, Latino …”

With that thought, I have observed, a range of conversations in mainstream journalistic articles and the blogosphere. But two stand out: 1) the end of racism and 2) an interest in Black America.

On one end, we see America hoisting the racism-is-over flag, with many believing that Obama’s presidential victory is proof positive that racial equality has been achieved, though several journalists attempt to diffuse this mind-set, explaining that Obama is one man, one example, and not a panacea for fixing the racial problem in America. But this attitude has provided fodder for many marketers to permanently plant Black Americans into the general-market segment as they perceive the Obama win as confirmation that Black America has assimilated 100% into the predominate culture. Former radio executive-turned-media-company owner Zamira Jones explains: “We have seen the devaluation of the African-American segment over time. The better we have done, the more marketers have seen us a homogenized group. In essence, we are White people in waiting.” It’s amazing that the pundits tell us that in order to fit in, African Americans (and others) have to give up their culture when everything around us tells us that Black culture continues to influence mainstream.

On the other end, there appears to be an interest in Black America and a need to re-educate the public about who African Americans really are as a people, and the effect that the Obama win has had not only on the Black community, but also on mainstream America as well. Zamira Jones adds: “Obama’s election has sparked an interest nationally and internationally in terms of not only wanting to understand ‘Who is he?,’ but also, ‘Who are they [African Americans]?’”

Evidence of this interest is seen post election in major mainstream print media for example. In one week I came across a few key articles among my regular print news sources. Harvard professor Orlando Patterson writes about the Black influence and exclusion in “The New Mainstream” and provides a contrasting point of view to White America’s perception about Black assimilation: “While Blacks have made absolute gains in income and education since the 1960s, their relative position has not changed. … Socially, blacks are more separate now than at the end of the 1960s.”

The Chicago Tribune’s cover story in the Nov. 10 issue featured an article about diversity in the workplace, and primarily focused on African-American authority in the workplace. Luke Visconti, partner and co-founder of Diversity, which publishes a magazine on workplace diversity, said this in the article: “Obama’s visibility on the national and world stage is an important step toward changing perceptions and cementing the idea that it’s normal to have minority leaders. … As we become very used to an authority figure who’s Black, we’re going to be much more comfortable with authority figures who are Black.” Visconti called this overcoming the “the expectation of the exceptional.”

And finally, Allison Samuels discussed the importance and potential lessons learned from Michelle Obama as the first Black First Lady in her article “What Michelle Can Teach Us” and in her cover story for Newsweek, “The Meaning of Michelle,” Samuels writes: “Few mainstream publications have done in-depth features on regular African-American women (and no, Halle Berry, Oprah and Beyonce don’t count). Little is known about who we are, what we think and what we face on a regular basis. The new First Lady will have the chance to knock down stereotypes about black women and educate the world about American black culture more generally.” ‘

But for those stereotypes to be knocked down, for the education to happen, White America in general — and marketers in particular — will have to pay attention and be willing students.

Thus spake Ms. Pepper.

First off, let’s just forget about any idea that Michelle Obama will teach “us” (the great unwashed and un-black) anything other than she’s more like Hillary Clinton than Laura Bush. Halle Berry and Beyonce do count, but Oprah doesn’t, so she gets a half-point on that count. That’s all on that one.

I don’t suppose anyone has bothered to illuminate Ms. Pepper that the “mainstream” ain’t a bad place to be or aspire to achieve. Let’s define what the “mainstream” is not:

-Neo-Nazi

-Redneck

-Taught to fight off the Revenuers

-Cloistered religious fanatics

-Extreme patriot, UFC cage fighters

-Baggy-pant wannabe hip-hoppers

-Bitches and “Hos”

-Your local drug dealer

-Your local Mexican or Asian smuggler

-Any criminal or “thug”

These are not mainstream Americans. If they are marginalized, there’s a reason for that. Are they welcome to return to, or enter, the mainstream? Anytime they want to drop the white supremacy talk or pull up their pants and wear a belt. There’s plenty of space to roam in the mainstream of a normal, structured society.

And leave it to a Harvard prof to give us this one: “While Blacks have made absolute gains in income and education since the 1960s, their relative position has not changed. … Socially, blacks are more separate now than at the end of the 1960s.” Any apartheid is self-imposed. So, yes, just like there are still predominantly white communities in the mainstream, there are predominantly black communities in the mainstream but it’s not because we’ve locked each other out. It’s a choice, and, as I stated, self-imposed, not imposed from the outside or by law. In history, 1964 until today is not a long time and the things we’ve accomplished on race, technology and the environment are light years ahead of any other nation. We’d rather hear Ms. Pepper and her ilk bellyache over what is yet to be done than celebrate what has been accomplished.

Four years of Obama will not heal that wound. And four years does not an era make.

Doesn’t this remind you of 1829? January 14, 2009

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Andrew Jackson was so vilified in his second campaign for president (he did not win his first, if you didn’t know) that not even his wife was immune to the barbs of a sitting president and his cronies. Well, he did appear to marry her prior to her receiving a proper divorce from her husband during the rise of a most Victorian of times BUT he was still elected in 1828 and began the Jacksonian era in 1829. 180 years have passed and for whatever has changed, much has not changed.

The history lesson shouldn’t be lost on us, a week prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration as 44th president. I feel an illness that prevailed with John Q. Adams’ supporters after their stunning loss in 1828 to what they saw as a commoner, a wild beast of a man, Andrew Jackson. More recently, it’s the nausea I felt after Bill Clinton’s “victory” over George HW Bush. That sick feeling lasted eight years, not unlike the one anti-Jackson forces felt during his time. The good news might be that Obama is not nearly as crazy as Jackson. The bad news is that he has no where near the character or integrity of that wild beast of a man, a commoner, Andrew Jackson.

The fact is, he wouldn’t be water carrier on Abe Lincoln’s team or FDR’s either. He has no grit like Harry Truman and all the hollow charisma of JFK won’t help him now. That’s all he is, an empty suit, or at least, that’s all he appears to be at the outset of his term. He is good at rhetoric, with teleprompter at hand, but get him on his own and he “ahs” worse than your teenager…or your teenager friend you’d like him to lose. Like those who supported Adams in 1828 , I was in the chorus of naysayers in 2008 who didn’t believe this man was capable of anything tactically good or strategically enduring. I stand on that premise today.

Yet, here is the irony: Regardless of my personal angst and anxiety, he must succeed. I do not believe, but I must hope the man can have the steely character and tenacity of Andrew Jackson;  the unbending love of country that Ronald Reagan possessed; and, the will to protect the nation that George W. Bush has had. More than anything, I want Obama to prove me wrong. I may not show any faith that he can, but I must hope that he will.

So this cusp, this last few days of the Bush Administration, makes me light-headed. It’s like losing a safety net you felt was there. Lots of things were messed up by Bush and the Republicans, but I didn’t worry about sitting outside of my favorite coffee shop, riding the subway or going to the grocery store. I won’t feel that confident on January 20, 2009.

The difference between 1829 and 2009 isn’t that men are less petty or shrill or more dignified and sophisticated, although it may appear so on the surface. It’s true, the majority have allowed political correctness to blind them to the truth. Andrew Jackson was a “common man” with a vision for America who could not be elected today. Obama is not a common man and he is possessed of empty rhetoric and no agenda to change anything the way he pontificated during the campaign, and, yet, was elected.

Still, I hope he will succeed in protecting and defending this great nation. I hope that as broke down and retreaded as his cabinet is, somehow good decisions will be made, that they will not compromise this great nation with political correctness and handing over decisions to international entities that have no business speaking for We The People. We are the strongest mation in the world, by the grace of Almighty God, and the sooner we acknowledge it and act like it (again) the better. But it is not for one man to bring us back to faith, it is all of us pulling together.

Obama is not the one who has given me faith that he can succeed. God will bless us if we turn back to Him, no matter who sits in the White House. Let’s pray we can get this country back in order through praise and thanksgiving and then we will look back on these times as a valley we walked together holding onto the Lord, not the frail hands of a man.

It’s simple, effective & politically incorrect January 4, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Step out of the way and let Israel take care of its business. If Hamas wants terror, then Israel can perpetrate all it needs to exterminate the cockroaches (that are Hamas) who intend to harm Israelis. It’s that politically incorrect and simple: I don’t want to see civilian casualties but if the choice is the enemy’s civilian casualities or mine, I’ll make it theirs. If major conflicts can find resolution in that simple plan, skirmishes with cowards should be dealt with the same.

While I’m at it, I might as well suggest carpet bombing Afghanistan until the Al-Qaeda and Taliban cockroaches scramble in the light and whoever wasn’t killed in the dark can be otherwise exterminated. Rebuilding Afghanistan is cheaper than endlessly playing cat-and-mouse with cowards and allowing them to upset normal life for the innocent.

Finally, I hope the new president will take care of business in our own hemisphere and deal swiftly with the Communist revivalists in Central and South America. If that means starting with blockading Venezuela, I can live with that. I’ve got no problem trading with Commies. I think we should have normalized trade with Cuba decades ago. However, if they now feel bold enough to beginning exporting their brand of tumult, I say jam it up them where the sun don’t shine and make sure they have little taste for that adverturism in the future.

Prove me wrong.

This Is Your President (reminder) January 1, 2009

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , ,
1 comment so far

I did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama, not because of his name or race, but because of his lack of character and politics built on sand, with no root. From election day to year’s end, his cabinet appointments are filled with Clinton re-treads and, without a teleprompter, his speech is riddled with “ahs” like a teenager. This doesn’t instill confidence from those who didn’t/don’t support him and I have to wonder if it is the change his supporters really voted for. Only God can save this great nation.

Here is your President:

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” —Barack Obama

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

- Senator Barack Obama (April 6, 2008)

“Let’s be clear,” Mr. Obama said sternly. “What we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed.” – New York Times, Sep 17, 2008

“I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that’s to be expected. Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things. And you know what – it’s worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know. I get it.” -Barack Obama, from DNC acceptance speech

According to the Associated Press story, Senator Obama gave the little girl a brief explanation of his plan for universal health insurance coverage and improved education. Then he explained his view that the wealthy should pay the expenses of people who are not wealthy:

“We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money,” Sen. Obama said. “If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?”

Barack, the rock star, in Berlin:

“I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.” [Ed. note: I have no apology to Europeans, or anyone else for that matter]

And a final thought…

“Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted ‘present’ nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.” —Charles Krauthammer